Sorry - all other one paragraph takes on the season are wrong. Here we go :
The Nats thought that however many games lost during the regular season caused by replacing Dusty Baker with Davey Martinez would not matter. They also thought they could weather the lack of depth in the starting rotation by using their 5th starter sparingly bolstered by a well-paid back end of the bullpen. However, overuse of the quality pen arms coupled with the early failings of the starting pitchers cost them a few games. The Nats also got injured early, then played poorly, and then got unlucky. With the Braves and Phillies both having better first halves than expected, the Nats found themselves in a deeper hole then they imagined they could be in as the trade deadline neared. The Nats management did not choose to add to their roster. Instead they tried to create addition by subtraction, hoping that shedding what passed for malcontents in the Nats clubhouse could spark a run without committing resources. When this plan failed the Nats slowly sold off the remaining free agents to try to save some cash and limped to the finish line just over .500 at 82-80.
Who's to blame?
You can blame everyone. You can blame the decisions to go with Davey Martinez or to not address the starting pitching depth. You can blame injuries, bad play, bad luck (both with their own games and with Atlanta and Philadelphia playing very well to start the year), and Davey Martinez himself for a couple of more losses apiece than they should have had by the All-Star break. Any one of these things changes and perhaps the Nats decision making at that point changes. Once you get to the All-Star break, you can blame the management for half-heartedly punting on the season and also blame every thing else again, except bad luck, for the Nats not going on a run with the talent that was still in house.
If you ask me, I put most of the blame on the management. They made a couple decisions early that were likely to cost them a few games. This created a situation for the Nats that made a slower start more possible. They did try to do some mid-season corrections (trading for Herrerra) but mostly stood around waiting for the team to click and the season to move forward as expected. When time began to run out they had no idea what to do. The moves made at the trade deadline - jettisoning Kintzler and Kelley - and the reasonings that were given to the media for these moves - were the work of a management that had no plan for this situation and flailed in the face of difficulty.
Going forward I have faith that they'll set up a team that is competitive next season, assuming they want to, and will be a few games on either side of their best competitor in the NL East as summer moves along. But at that point I lose faith in the management. They have no belief in the big move, to either fend off or chase down another team, and Nats fans are left with only hope the Nats pull away, either because their talent takes off or the other team fails.
The Nats have World Series dreams and have adjusted their thinking in seasons where the playoffs are assured accordingly. Melancon, Doolittle/Kintzler/Madson. Kendrick. These are the moves of a serious team trying to fill in what remains of their gaps (with some measure of restraint). But to make the playoffs? The team has shown it does not have a plan for a playoff challenge and may never have one. The cost of adding enough talent to ensure (as much as is possible) a playoff spot being too high. The likelihood of changing playoff odds with smaller moves being too low to warrant spending any moderate amount. They will tinker. They may try to find a player a team is desperate to move. They will not commit. They will accept what the season throws at them and regroup for next year. This is their way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
What is your thesis here Harper?
Standing by for comments from the 4 sycophants who start off every post with: "Great job Harper!"
My thesis would be "The Nationals provided a quality team that through a series of missteps, both controllable and not, did not make the playoffs in 2018." That's the first paragraph part. I suppose you could generally say that about every team but I feel the blame is pretty well balanced for the 2018 squad as opposed to say 2015 "Strategic error inserting malcontent into a locker room with little leadership from the manager" and 2013 "roster error assuming bench would overperform a second year in a row"
The rest is editorial. We have to go on 7 years of data of playoff quality data where its very likely 1) they've learned some things 2) goals have shifted 3) opinions inside the team on what can be done have shifted, and of course 4) every year is different. you try to give the best take on the data we have and the data we have and what we know of the team from what the media has gotten across to us.
is there anything to the psychology/locker room of the team having an issue? im not pointing fingers as i have no insight into the team. it just seems like this team has a lack of real identity/chemistry. celebrations almost seem manufactored. like... hey, we're supposed to be excited now!! lets hug and high five!! and then it almost looks unnatural. this goes back to the chocolate syrup and up to the hug after homeruns. maybe this team is missing something?? maybe the youth, like Soto etc can inspire? i dont know. it just seems a bit like a low emotion almost uninspired team that lacks real identity and chemistry. does that start with the manager? would Bryce have been that guy? Max certainly has that demeanor. but can it come from a pitcher? Max gives 120% every start. and seems to give it on the bench as well. but it bothered me when he seemed to reach out to Stras and there was definitely a "problem" there. again, i dont know the details of it. just what i observed. i know i said i wouldnt point fingers, and thats not my intent here.... but some players just seem to acceptant of "failure" or "not coming thru" not being "clutch". and perceived false emotions dont cut it really either. i dont know the answer. i dont really even know the problem, or if it really is a problem. just throwing this out there to see if anyone else has the same sense?
Keep the fifteen guys who couldn't care one way or another about the manager away from the five guys who hate him.
That's how Casey Stengel handled the clubhouse.
@Cardinal Ximinez
I think some of Bryce not bringing personality is that it got coached out of him. People clutched their pearls whenever he showed a trace of attitude. He also couldn't give 80% on routine groundouts to avoid getting injured because then he lacked fire. The fanbase and media were never going to let him win. He was branded a diva and a punk before he stepped onto the field. They wanted a more skilled Zim, high-quality but plain vanilla. I don't know if the Nats audience is really that much different than most fanbases in that regard; baseball in general frowns on any sort of display of emotion or personality.
Scherzer's psycho act would land about as well as Gio's goofiness if Max had a >4 ERA. Werth's grumpy weirdo persona was the only recent time a Nat got away with quirks without being really good. There were Nyger Morgan and Dmitri Young back in the era before the Nats could actually be competitive, when goofy antics and rotund sluggers were all the team had. That wouldn't happen today.
If you want to know what the real problem is with the Nationals all you have to do is read Chelsea Janes article, What's to blame for the Nationals lost season-Part 5 the players.
She was describing Zim's laid back attitude and the followed it up with this observation.
"But this team, as a whole, seems to subscribe to a similar theory. Either you win or you don't win. You play how you play, and sometimes it works.
The mentality is entrenched here. Four very different managers led this team over the last six years and couldn't change it. Rizzo acquired gritty players including Adam Eaton and Daniel Murphy, and the didn't alter it. A strange determinism lives in that clubhouse, one that the Nationals do not always recognize, one as apparent to those on the outside as it is invisible to those on the inside."
So let me translate what she is saying. The team lacks toughness. We have a bunch of country club type players who don't deal with pressure very well. They believe that talent is enough to win but talent only gets you so far.
These things tend to start at the top. To understand how it started you have to go back to the beginning. The Lerners were not baseball people. They were real estate people and basically they do office building for well heeled corporations. Baseball handed them the franchise. They didn't work to get the franchise it dropped in their lap. They know how to negotiate a contract but not how to run a sports franchise. It is all about showing a profit and Rizzo feeds into their world view. Get strong pitching. It will get you to the playoffs and one of these days you will win the WS.
The Braves won once with the best staff of it generation because they had no hitting. The Lerners will never go ALL IN on a season--like Houston did with Verlander last year.
So if you are waiting for a World Series victory, we could have another 44 year wait.
That is laughable about Zimmerman. Only 7 people in major league history have more walk off homers than Zimmerman. Too laid back? Really? He has been injury plagued and it has hurt the team. But that's baseball. Toughness is not the Nationals problem. Basic baseball skills are the problem. Moving up runners, taking the extra base, laying down an effective bunt. Countless times this season a basic baseball play would have led to victory. But that's baseball today. All teams do it. Watching the playoffs now you see everybody swinging from their heels no matter the situation. The entire left side or right side of the infield wide open, a man on second and few hit to the open spaces. It's baseball by checkbook (for homers). Given that, the Nets have been more successful than most over the past 8 or so seasons. How spoiled we have become.
You have a point of view, though not likely an informed one. Walk off homers have nothing to do with toughness. Try again.
Ignorant comment and unnecessary. There is a mindset, a toughness, necessary at crucial moments of any big event to perform at an elevated level. Many athletes wilt under the pressure of the moment. Some get lucky and hit a broken bat bleeder out of reach. Most don't. To do it repeatedly means something. But you clearly lack understanding of what toughness means in an athletic sense.
Post a Comment